Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: Annee

That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

When it is alright to discriminate against smokers, and gun owners you can discriminate against gays.

Fair share,Fair play and all that jazz.

a reply to: Annee

That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

And no that is not price gouging there are people that pay insane prices for cakes.

Weddings are expensive.

And there ARE people who shell out that kind of dough.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

When it is alright to discriminate against smokers, and gun owners you can discriminate against gays.

Fair share,Fair play and all that jazz.

No. Gays are a minority class of people.

Has nothing to do with lifestyle. If anyone is confused about lifestyle, that is how you choose to live your life.

As in: smoker, gun owner, religion, etc.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

And no that is not price gouging there are people that pay insane prices for cakes.

Weddings are expensive.

And there ARE people who shell out that kind of dough.

If you charge gays more for the same cake because they are gay -- and charge normal price to everyone else -- yes, that is price gouging and illegal.

a reply to: Annee

they are not minorities anymore. we are all gay progressives (not really but you get the idea!). tis the only way to make sure we have the same treatment (fair is fair). well, i don't want to be beat up for being gay, or refused cake for being gay, but then i wouldn't beat up someone for being gay or refuse them a cake for being gay, cause i take the whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing seriously. now if everyone else did also, none of this would be a problem.

a reply to: neo96

annee is right. it's price gouging.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

When it is alright to discriminate against smokers, and gun owners you can discriminate against gays.

Fair share,Fair play and all that jazz.

Cigarettes and guns are inanimate objects that have no rights. Gays however are people that do have rights.

a reply to: buster2010

oh that's just silly. it's the person using the objects that have rights, not the objects. silly argument mr. buster2010.

this same issue arose with native americans smoking peyote in their religious rituals. gov has no business dictating whatcha put in your body. you, as a sentient being, capable of intellectual thought, are in charge of that part.

Cigarettes and guns are inanimate objects that have no rights. Gays however are people that do have rights

Try again.

ALL 3 are groups of people that all have rights.

If one has rights they all do.

We don't get to pick and choose which ones don't.

Discrimination is DISCRIMINATION

For those who looks like they have forgotten what the word means:

discrimination   Use Discrimination in a sentence dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

dictionary.reference.com...

a reply to: macman

You know mac, I'm going to talk directly TO YOU for a minute. About 90% of what you post in response to me is empty, over-generalized rhetoric. Why is that so? Because it is. There are facts that exist outside of your opinions. When you post these little meaningless sniping quips like "oh, because you say so" you sound like a little kid in their first argument at kindergarten.

Your style looks impressive, because you go to the trouble (*mumble* OCD *mumble*) to cut and paste every little comment and take up screen, but really, you're just making snide low-content pokes and wasting space. Not to mention, quite often you're simply reversing or denying your own statements, for example ...

To compare "sensitivity training" to re-education camps is merely lurid exaggeration.

You know it. I know it. Anyone who reads knows it. But, that's what passes for discussion and debate these days.

To compare sensitivity training to "re-education camps" is utterly ludicrous.

To compare it to totalitarianism is quite simply beyond the pale.

Additionally of note, macman, YOU MADE THE COMPARISON that the (assumed) heterosexual employees of the baker in sensitivity training were somehow being "re-educated to be homosexual." Your words, mac, not mine. I have sex with men anytime I want to ... so I don't have to fantasize about it ... what's your excuse?

I find posts that are empty of content utterly ridiculous. This schtick is really utterly predictable.

This cannot be compared to racism. being black or white is a physical characteristic one is born with. Homosexuality is a learned behavior just like many other forms of perversion (look it up, it is by definition a perversion). I have yet to meet a gay baby.

This is bigotry in it's purest form. The gays and their supporters are absolutely intolerant of any point of view but their own. Instead of live and let live, (which by the way is how most people who oppose homosexuality have usually approached the subject) it is in your face, comply and consent or be persecuted/penalized.

This is also quickly becoming a fascist movement.

The guy was not discriminating against these people. He would not make such a wedding cake for anyone, not just them. If I asked for one he would have refused me as well. Now if they asked for a cheesecake instead, I am sure he would have obliged, whether they were gay or not.

This is also not about equality. We have all (gays/straights) always had the same rights. No one has ever had the right to marry who or what they love.

A man cannot marry a goat, even if he and said goat are in love. Is that discrimination?

A man cannot marry a child, even if he and said child are in love. Is that discrimination?

I'll skip the people that would like to marry their furniture. (yes it is true)

This is all about moral corruption being imposed on us and more importantly our children. Yes morals and ethics go hand and hand. You cannot have one without the other because for all practical purposes they are one in the same.

This is not being done for us, it is being done to us. All part of the master plan to turn us into mindless animals.

"Do what thou wilt" comes to mind.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"To compare "sensitivity training" to re-education camps is merely lurid exaggeration."



It is the same when somebody is forced to attend.

a reply to: begoodbees

well i think this is truly a case of do unto others, to be frank and honest. if you were that person instead of who you are today, would you want to be treated like that? most likely not.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill as far as the dogs are concerned. That was a mock wedding performed for pure entertainment purposes only. Are you seriously suggesting those dogs had any clue as to what was going on, besides how nice each other's butts smelled that day?

You sound like the hateful bigot in this thread. Just listen to yourself, you don't deserve the right to make that man bake you a cake.

reply to : BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

"Choice" I like that word.

I guess "choice" only applies to those for marriage equality, and not a business owner.


Got love the "It's different" crowd.

Perhaps you should have read and addressed my entire post including the last paragraph:

"This is separate from owning/operating a business that serves the public. So don't come back with the baker didn't have a choice. He had the choice not to have a business that by law is required to provide same service to all customers."

The thing is you are off on a tangent that does not apply. None of the anti-marriage equality folks are going to give up their legal government marriage so that it is not available to gays.

Oh I read it. The application of "It's different" is very strong within your statement.

So, full choice for those seeking marriage equality. But............limited choice to the business owner.

Very thoughtful of you.

originally posted by: kaylaluv


The Federal Government abolished Jim Crow laws with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you think everyone in the south was happy about that, you're nuts.

en.wikipedia.org...

The free market system in the south totally supported whites-only restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, etc. so don't tell me that the free market system would stop discrimination.

Good hell.
When did make any statement about the South being happy or unhappy about this? I like that you think injecting replies to imagined statements is useful but that crap doesn't fly.

And again. Those were laws created and instituted by the Govt.......So, let's rehash this.

Govt created laws, business and citizens followed said laws. And of course this in some way means that all business within Colorado could stop dealing with a certain group of people.

Yeah....Sure sure.

a reply to: Annee

When did upping the price of a good or service become illegal?

Man, you sure got one excuse after another to justify removing rights of someone, to give extra rights to someone else.

a reply to: buster2010
Your A to B correlation is incorrect.

We, as people, have the right to own firearms and carry them.

There is no right for anyone to purchase a cake.

originally posted by: Bone75
You're making a mountain out of a molehill as far as the dogs are concerned. That was a mock wedding performed for pure entertainment purposes only.

Actually, in this case it was a marriage equality activist who called and asked for the dog wedding cake.

It was about proving a point. That this baker went beyond the belief that marriage is religious and was sacred only between a man and a woman.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: buster2010
Your A to B correlation is incorrect.

We, as people, have the right to own firearms and carry them.

There is no right for anyone to purchase a cake.

Do you just pick and choose what you read.

I said the price had to be the same for everyone.

YOU said charge gays more. That is what's illegal.